Successful Defense of Cardiologist in Both Trial and Appellate Courts

Marshall Dennehey's attorneys were victorious in a health care matter in the trial courts and before the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division. The plaintiff had a congenital heart condition, bicuspid aortic valve disease, which put him at a greater risk for endocarditis, an inflammation of the inner lining of the heart. We represented the plaintiff's cardiologist. The plaintiff had complained of certain symptoms that our client believed indicated a viral illness and the cardiologist sent him to an internist. When he later returned to see our client without a resolution of the symptoms, blood cultures were ordered, and the plaintiff was diagnosed with endocarditis. As a result, the plaintiff's aortic valve had to be replaced. The plaintiff's lawsuit alleged that the delay in diagnosis led to the necessity for the surgery. A jury returned a defense verdict, finding that there was no violation of the standard of care on behalf of our client. The plaintiff appealed and raised two issues. The first concerned a pre-trial order regarding his experts. After the time for providing expert reports was over, plaintiff's counsel informed the court that their expert doctor was "too busy" to testify and would no longer serve as plaintiff's expert. The plaintiff then attempted to replace that physician with another expert. The defendants objected, and the trial court held that the plaintiff did not show exceptional circumstances sufficient to add the new doctor to the case. The second issue involved extension of discovery. On appeal, the Appellate Division found no error in the decision to bar the second expert's report and testimony and rejected the plaintiff's argument that an extension of discovery to do expert depositions granted the plaintiff permission to substitute his expert.